Metadata record for Breaking the Cycle of Drugs and Crime in Birmingham, Alabama, Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, 1997-20013928
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License .
2015-03-31Breaking the Cycle of Drugs and Crime in Birmingham, Alabama, Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, 1997-2001392810.3886/ICPSR03928.v1Harrell, Adele V.Marlowe, DouglasMerrill, JeffreyPlease see full citation.United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice97-IJ-CX-0013
Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research
2004-05-282006-03-302006-03-30 File UG3928.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.2006-03-302006-03-30 File CQ3928.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.2005-11-042005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one
or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well
as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable,
and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to
reflect these additions.Harrell, Adele V., Douglas Marlowe, and Jeffrey Merrill. BREAKING THE CYCLE OF DRUGS AND CRIME IN BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, AND TACOMA, WASHINGTON, 1997-2001. ICPSR version. Washington, DC: Urban Institute [producer], 2003. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2004. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03928.v1courtscriminal justice systemdrug abusedrug treatmentdrug useevaluationfelony offensesinterventionoffendersICPSR.XVII.ENACJD.VI
This study was an evaluation of the Breaking the Cycle
(BTC) demonstration projects conducted in Birmingham, Alabama,
Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, between 1997 and
2001. The BTC demonstrations tested the feasibility and impact of
systemwide interventions to reduce drug use among offenders by
identifying and intervening with drug-involved felony defendants. This
study contains data collected as part of the impact evaluation of BTC,
which was designed to test the hypotheses that BTC reduced criminal
involvement, substance abuse, and problems related to the health,
mental health, employment, and families of felony drug defendants in
the demonstration sites. The evaluation examined the relationship
between changes in these areas and characteristics of the
participants, the kinds and levels of services and supervision they
received, and perceptions of defendants about the justice system's
handling of their cases. It also assessed how BTC affected case
handling and the length of time required to reach a disposition, the
number of hearings, and the kinds of sentences imposed. The impact
evaluation was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of defendants
in BTC with samples of similar defendants arrested in the year before
BTC implementation. Interviews were conducted with sample members and
additional data were gathered from administrative records sources,
such as the BTC programs, arrest records, and court records.
This study was an evaluation of the Breaking the
Cycle (BTC) demonstration projects conducted in Birmingham, Alabama,
Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, between 1997 and
2001. The BTC demonstrations tested the feasibility and impact of
systemwide interventions to reduce drug use among offenders by
identifying and intervening with drug-involved felony defendants. The
BTC strategy was to screen offenders shortly after arrest and require
those found to use drugs to participate in a drug intervention while
under criminal justice supervision. BTC targeted all adult felony
defendants and was not limited to those charged with drug offenses.
Defendants were ordered to report to BTC for drug screening as a
condition of pretrial release. Those who reported drug use, tested
positive for drugs, or were arrested on drug felony charges were
placed in drug testing and, when appropriate, referred to drug
treatment or drug education classes. The goal was to expand the scope
of earlier programs such as drug courts and Treatment Alternatives to
Street Crime (TASC) by incorporating drug reduction activities as part
of handling felony cases. The core reforms called for by the BTC model
were early intervention, judicial oversight, graduated sanctions and
incentives, and collaboration among justice and treatment agencies.
This study contains data collected as part of the impact evaluation of
BTC, which was designed to test the hypotheses that BTC reduced
criminal involvement, substance abuse, and problems related to the
health, mental health, employment, and families of felony drug
defendants in the demonstration sites. The evaluation examined the
relationship between changes in these areas and characteristics of
participants, the kinds and levels of services and supervision they
received, and perceptions of defendants about the justice system's
handling of their cases (Parts 1, 3, and 5). It also assessed how BTC
affected case handling, the length of time required to reach a
disposition, the number of hearings, and the kinds of sentences
imposed (Parts 2, 4, and 6).
The conceptual design of the impact evaluation
focused on two outcomes: (1) goals for offenders, such as reductions
in drug and alcohol use, criminal activity, health, social, and
employment problems, perceptions of offenders concerning the fairness
of the hearings, and the risk and severity of consequences for
noncompliance with court orders, and (2) system changes, such as the
number of hearings, number of days between arraignment and case
disposition, top charge at conviction, and sentences imposed. The
interventions and services hypothesized to affect offender and system
outcomes included drug treatment placements, type and duration of drug
treatment, drug testing, frequency of judicial monitoring, intensity
of contact with case managers or court supervision staff, the types of
incentives and sanctions, and the timeliness and consistency of
sanctioning. In addition, offender characteristics were hypothesized
to affect both the type of services received and the response. These
characteristics included demographics, substance abuse pattern and
severity, employment and educational status, family status and living
situation, physical and mental health, prior criminal activity, and
current charge. To assess the first outcome, goals for offenders, the
impact evaluation consisted of a quasi-experimental comparison of
defendants in BTC with samples of similar defendants arrested in the
year before BTC implementation. Parts 1, 3, and 5 contain the data for
this component of the evaluation for Birmingham, Jacksonville, and
Tacoma, respectively. These data were collected from records
maintained by the Breaking the Cycle (BTC) programs and partner
agencies, as well as from National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
databases. In addition, interviews were conducted by the Treatment
Research Institute (TRI) with sample members shortly following arrest
(baseline) and again nine months later (follow-up). The questionnaires
consisted of the Addiction Severity Index (ASI), modified to include
additional questions about illegal activities and participation in
drug treatment services. In Birmingham (Part 1) respondents were also
given the Risk of AIDS Behavior questions. In Jacksonville and Tacoma
(Parts 3 and 5) respondents were asked questions about perceptions of
fairness and the consequences of noncompliance with court
orders. Participation in the evaluation was voluntary. TRI staff
contacted potential sample members shortly after arrest and asked for
their consent. They were guaranteed confidentiality and offered
financial incentives for participation. The participants signed a
written consent form agreeing to participate in the study and allowing
the research team to collect data from criminal justice and treatment
agencies. To assess the second outcome, changes in the criminal
justice system, the impact evaluation assessed how the BTC programs
affected criminal case processing. Parts 2, 4, and 6 contain court
data from Birmingham, Jacksonville, and Tacoma, respectively, gathered
for all felony defendants processed by the courts during a specified
period of time. The samples were chosen to compare felony cases prior
to and during BTC implementation to measure the impact of BTC on court
case processing.
In Parts 1, 3, and 5, data were collected from the
BTC program on the sample entry charge, disposition, sentence, and
re-arrests after BTC. Additional information was gathered with the
Addiction Severity Index. In particular, respondents were asked about
medical problems, medical history, education and employment histories,
income from various sources, drug and alcohol use and abuse, criminal
history, current living arrangements, family life, and psychological
problems. Demographic variables include age, gender, race, religious
preference, years of education, and type of occupation. Interviews in
Birmingham (Part 1) also included questions from the Risk of AIDS
Behavior questionnaire. Respondents in Jacksonville (Part 3) and
Tacoma (Part 5) were only asked a couple of questions about Risk of
AIDS, including history of sharing needles and cleaning needles and
sexual history. Additional questions in Jacksonville (Part 3) and
Tacoma (Part 5) were asked about respondents' assessments of the
likelihood of arrest or sentencing if they committed another serious
crime or tested positive for drugs, and respondents' perceptions of
the fairness of the criminal justice system. Parts 2, 4, and 6 contain
information from court records. Variables in Part 2 (Birmingham)
include the type of offense, case status, case action, number of
hearings to disposition, disposition at first hearing, days from
arrest to case filing, days from arrest to first hearing, and days
from arrest to disposition. Part 4 (Jacksonville) includes offender's
age, race, gender, offense type, number of charges, disposition, type
of sentence, number of convictions, days from arrest to intake, days
from arrest to plea, total number of hearings, and days from arrest to
first hearing. Part 6 (Tacoma) variables include age at arrest,
gender, race, type of offense, number of counts, method of
disposition, type of sentence, total sentence in days, days from
arrest to disposition, days from arrest to arraignment, days from
arrest to pretrial conference, and number of convictions.
1997200119972001Please see geographic coverage.AlabamaBirminghamFloridaJacksonvilleTacomaUnited StatesWashingtonNone.Parts 1, 3, and 5: individuals. Parts 2, 4, and 6:
court cases.Parts 1, 3, and 5: Felony defendants involved with illegal
drugs in Birmingham, Alabama, Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma,
Washington, respectively. Parts 2, 4, and 6: All felony court cases
processed in Birmingham, Alabama, Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma,
Washington, respectively, between 1997 and 2001.administrative records data, and survey data
Parts 1, 3, and 5 consisted of a quasi-experimental
comparison of defendants in BTC with samples of similar defendants
arrested in the year before BTC implementation. The sample selection
procedures were designed to select individuals who would be eligible
for BTC services, even if selected prior to BTC implementation. Sample
members were required to be (1) age 18 or older, (2) residents of the
county or BTC service area, (3) facing a felony charge, and (4)
involved with illegal drugs as measured by a current drug charge, a
positive urinalysis screen, or self-reported drug use. A small number
of potential sample members were excluded because of a language
barrier, psychiatric impairment, or intoxication at the time they were
contacted. For Parts 2, 4, and 6 all felony court cases processed
during specified periods of time before and during BTC implementation
were selected.
For Parts 1, 3, and 5, data were collected from records
maintained by the Breaking the Cycle (BTC) programs and partner
agencies, as well as from National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
databases. Data were also collected from interviews with sample
members. Interviews were either conducted face-to-face or by telephone.
Parts 2, 4, and 6 consist of official records data obtained from court
records on filings and case outcomes.

ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
(1) Users are strongly encouraged to read the Final
Report for more detailed information about the sampling and
methodology for this project. In particular, Appendix A of the Final
Report contains a detailed methodological report. The Final Report is
available from the Urban Institute. (2) The user guide, codebook, and
data collection instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document
Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems
Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as
the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the
Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.
In Birmingham (Part 1), 91 percent of the felony
defendants initially identified as eligible for BTC agreed to
participate in the study. In Jacksonville (Part 3), 47 percent of the
pre-BTC defendants and 72 percent of the BTC defendants consented to
participate in the study. In Tacoma (Part 5) 54 percent of the pre-BTC
sample and 83 percent of the BTC sample agreed to participate in the
study. However, after gaining consent, some participants in each of
the sites were subsequently dropped from the study because they were
later determined to be ineligible.
Parts 1, 3, and 5 contain several scales from the
Addiction Severity Index, as well as several Likert-type scales.
Ann Arbor, Mi.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social ResearchAdditional special permissions, where applicable, are described in the restrictions
field.

Please read the terms of use below. If you agree to them, click on the "I Agree" button to proceed. If you do not agree, you can click on the "I Do Not Agree" button to return to the home page.

ICPSR adheres to the principles of the Data Seal of Approval , which, in part, require the data consumer to comply with access regulations imposed both by law and by the data repository, and to conform to codes of conduct that are generally accepted in higher education and scientific research for the exchange of knowledge and information.

These data are distributed under the following terms of use, which are governed by ICPSR. By continuing past this point to the data retrieval process, you signify your agreement to comply with the requirements stated below:

Privacy of RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Any intentional identification of a RESEARCH SUBJECT (whether an individual or an organization) or unauthorized disclosure of his or her confidential information violates the PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data agree:

To use these datasets solely for research or statistical purposes and not for investigation of specific RESEARCH SUBJECTS, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

To make no use of the identity of any RESEARCH SUBJECT discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

Redistribution of Data

You agree not to redistribute data or other materials without the written agreement of ICPSR, unless:

You serve as the OFFICIAL or DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE at an ICPSR MEMBER INSTITUTION and are assisting AUTHORIZED USERS with obtaining data, or

You are collaborating with other AUTHORIZED USERS to analyze the data for research or instructional purposes.

When sharing data or other materials in these approved ways, you must include all accompanying files with the data, including terms of use. More information on permission to redistribute data can be found on the ICPSR Web site.

Citing Data

You agree to reference the recommended bibliographic citation in any publication that employs resources provided by ICPSR. Authors of publications based on ICPSR data are required to send citations of their published works to ICPSR for inclusion in a database of related publications (bibliography@icpsr.umich.edu ) .

Disclaimer

You acknowledge that the original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Violations

If ICPSR determines that the terms of this agreement have been violated, ICPSR will act according to our policy on terms of use violations . Sanctions can include:

ICPSR may revoke the existing agreement, demand the return of the data in question, and deny all future access to ICPSR data.

The violation may be reported to the Research Integrity Officer, Institutional Review Board, or Human Subjects Review Committee of the user's institution. A range of sanctions are available to institutions including revocation of tenure and termination.

If the confidentiality of human subjects has been violated, the case may be reported to the Federal Office for Human Research Protections. This may result in an investigation of the user's institution, which can result in institution-wide sanctions including the suspension of all research grants.

A court may award the payment of damages to any individual(s)/organization(s) harmed by the breach of the agreement.

Definitions authorized user - A faculty member, staff member, or student at a member institutionICPSR - Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Researchmember institution - An institutional member of ICPSROfficial/Designated Representative - An individual appointed to represent a university's interests in ICPSR. This individual is also charged with providing user support to campus users. promise of confidentiality - A promise to a respondent or research participant that the information the respondent provides will not be disseminated without the permission of the respondent; that the fact that the respondent participated in the study will not be disclosed; and that disseminated information will include no linkages to the identity of the respondent. Such a promise encompasses traditional notions of both confidentiality and anonymity. Names and other identifying information regarding respondents, proxies, or other persons on whom the respondent or proxy provides information, are presumed to be confidential.research subject - A person or organization observed for purposes of research. Also called a respondent. A respondent is generally a survey respondent or informant, experimental or observational subject, focus group participant, or any other person providing information to a study or on whose behalf a proxy provides information.

In addition, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data stipulates the following conditions:

Federal law and regulations require that research data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice or by its grantees and contractors may only be used for research or statistical purposes. The applicable laws and regulations may be found in the United States Code, 42 USC Section 3789g(a), the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 CFR 22, and 62 F.R. 35044 (June 27, 1997) (The Federal Confidentiality Order). Accordingly, any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment may violate federal law as well as the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data collected by or with the support from the U.S. Department of Justice and distributed by NACJD or other ICPSR archives must agree to abide by these regulations and understand that ICPSR may report any potential violation to the U.S. Department of Justice.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no
responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.
Birmingham Survey and BTC DataBirmingham Court DataJacksonville Survey and BTC DataJackson Court DataTacoma Survey and BTC DataTacoma Court Data